Emanuel Edward Klein-The Father of British Microbiology and the Case of the Animal Vivisection Controversy of 1875
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Toxicol Pathol OnlineFirst, published on August 18, 2009 as doi:10.1177/0192623309345871
Toxicologic Pathology, 000: 1-6, 2009
Copyright # 2009 by The Author(s)
ISSN: 0192-6233 print / 1533-1601 online
DOI: 10.1177/0192623309345871
Emanuel Edward Klein—The Father of British Microbiology and
the Case of the Animal Vivisection Controversy of 1875
BRUNO ATALIĆ,1 AND STELLA FATOVIĆ-FERENČIĆ1,2
1
School of Medicine, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University, Osijek, Croatia
2
Department for the History and Philosophy of Sciences, Division for the History of Medical Sciences, Croatian Academy
of Sciences and Arts, Zagreb, Croatia
ABSTRACT
The new Appendix A of the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes,
which gives guidelines for accommodation and care of animals and was approved on June 15, 2006, was the main reason the authors decided to
investigate the origins of the regulations of animal experiments. Although one might assume that the regulation had its origin in the United Nations
conventions, the truth is that its origins are a hundred years old. The authors present a case of the nineteenth-century vivisection controversy brought
about by the publication of the Handbook for the Physiological Laboratory in 1873, in which John Burdon-Sanderson, Emanuel Edward Klein,
Michael Foster, and Thomas Lauder Brunton described a series of vivisection experiments they performed on animals for research purposes. It was
the first case of vivisection to be examined, processed, and condemned for inhuman behavior toward animals before an official body, leading to
enactment of the Cruelty to Animals Act in 1876. The case reveals a specific ethos of science in the second half of the nineteenth century, which
was characterized by a deep commitment of scientists to the scientific enterprise and their strong belief that science could solve social problems,
combined with an overt insensitivity to the suffering of experimental animals. The central figure in the case was Emanuel Edward Klein, a disciple
of the Central European medical tradition (Vienna Medical School) and a direct follower of the experimental school of Brücke, Stricker, Magendie,
and Bernard. Because of his undisguised attitudes and opinions on the use of vivisection, Klein became a paradigm of the new scientific identity,
strongly influencing the stereotypic image of a scientist, and polarizing the public opinion on vivisection in England in the nineteenth century and for
some considerable time afterward.
Keywords: Klein; Emanuel Edward; physiology; nineteenth century; vivisectionism; antivivisectionism; United Kingdom.
INTRODUCTION turkeys, quails, ducks, geese, pigeons, zebra finch), amphi-
bians, reptiles, and fishes. This sophisticated regulation com-
The new Appendix A of the European Convention for the
prises 109 written pages (Appendix A 2006). Although it
Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and
gives the required guidelines for the contemporary laboratory
Other Scientific Purposes, which gives guidelines for accom-
researches, the appendix does not say anything about the origi-
modation and care of animals, was approved by the multilateral
nation of the regulations for animal experiments. This was the
consultation in Strasbourg on June 15, 2006. It starts with the
main reason we decided to describe the animal vivisection con-
definition of the primary animal accommodation such as a
troversy of 1875 and the role of Emanuel Edward Klein in it,
cage, pen, run, and stall as well as secondary animal accommo-
because it was the starting point for all regulations of animal
dation such as holding rooms and containment systems. It gives
experiments. Emanuel Edward Klein (1844-1925) was a
thorough instructions for the physical facilities, the environ-
British microbiologist of Croatian origin (Figure 1). He com-
ment, the education and training of staff, and care for
pleted his medical degree in Vienna, Austria, in 1869, where
laboratory animals. It continues with the description of the spe-
he studied under the physiologist Ernst Wilhelm von Brücke
cificities of breeding of the most common groups of laboratory
(1819-1892) and the pathologist Salomon Stricker (1834-
animals, including rodents (mice, rats, gerbils, hamsters, gui-
1898) (Fatović-Ferenčić 2008; Mortimer 1999). Brücke was
nea pigs, and rabbits), cats, dogs, ferrets, nonhuman primates
appointed as an active teacher and head of the Institute of
(marmosets, tamarins, squirrel monkeys, baboons), farm ani-
Physiology as the chair of physiology and higher microscopic
mals (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and minipigs), birds (fowls,
anatomy at the University of Vienna in the summer of 1849.
The School of Physiology, which he founded in Vienna, even-
Address correspondence to: Stella Fatović-Ferenčić, Department for the
tually extended its influence far beyond the Austrian borders.
History and Philosophy of Sciences, Division for the History of Medical Many of the most accomplished physiologists of the next
Sciences, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Gundulićeva 24, 10000 generation were trained in Brücke’s laboratory. Sigmund
Zagreb, Croatia; e-mail: stella@hazu.hr. Freud, who worked there from 1876 to 1882, considered that
This article is a result of the research financed by the National Foundation Brücke was the most respected teacher and the greatest author-
for Science, Higher Education and Technological Development of the
Republic of Croatia. It is also part of the research project Croatian Medical
ity in the field that he had ever known. Stricker, on the other
Identity and its European Context, number 101-1012555-2553, financed by the hand, became a research assistant at the Institute of
Ministry of Science, Education and Sport of the Republic of Croatia. Physiology under Brücke and later the head of the Institute
1
Downloaded from tpx.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 20152 ATALIĆ AND FATOVIĆ-FERENČIĆ TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
he made such a favorable impression on John Burdon-Sanderson
(1828-1905) and John Simon (1816-1904) that they invited him
to London in 1871 to conduct investigations under their gui-
dance. Klein accepted the invitation and as soon as 1873 was
appointed assistant professor of comparative pathology at the
Brown Animal Sanatory Institution in London (Franklin
2000). In the same year, upon an invitation from Sir William
Savory (1826-1895), Klein began his collaboration with Saint
Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, where he was appointed joint
professor of general anatomy and physiology (Andrews 1925).
He was a diligent researcher and wrote around 260 scientific
papers on different topics in the fields of anatomy, histology,
pathology, embryology, and physiology. However, his greatest
contributions were in the science of microbiology. His handbook
Micro-organisms and Diseases, published in 1884, was the first
microbiological handbook written in English and made Pasteur’s
and Koch’s bacteriological discoveries, published in French and
German journals, available for the first time to English and
American scientists (Mortimer 1999). Klein established the stan-
dards for microbiological research by insisting on microscopical
identification, cultural isolation, and animal inoculation as the
three phases necessary in establishing the connection between
a specific germ and a specific disease. Due to the breadth of his
research, rigorous implementation of Continental European
improvements, and continuous education of future microbiolo-
gists, microbiology in Britain became an established field of sci-
ence, and Klein became known as the ‘‘father of British
microbiology’’ (Lambert 1963).
FIGURE 1.—Emanuel Edward Klein — by the courtesy of the archival Medicine and science as disciplines reflect the specific cul-
staff of the Saint Bartholomew’s Hospital. ture, and specific times in which they are produced. The profile
of a physician-scientist, as well as his worldview, is shaped
accordingly (Fatović-Ferenčić 2004). The second half of the
of General and Experimental Pathology in Vienna. He dedicated nineteenth century was characterized by the rise of ‘‘positi-
himself to research in histology and experimental pathology vism,’’ which, under the influence of development of basic
and is credited with the discovery of diapedesis of erythrocytes sciences, redirected the interest of physicians from bedside
(Lesky 1965). The work of both Carl Heitzmann and Carl Kol- medicine toward laboratory practice. Laboratory and experi-
ler was directly linked to Stricker’s experimental designs, mental work in specific circumstances, dictated by the develop-
although this is far less known in the published literature. By ment of science and new scientific methodology, became a new
demonstrating ad oculus the world of capillaries, diapedesis source of fascination for physicians at the turn of the twentieth
of blood cells, and cell division in vivo, Stricker paved the way century (Cunningham and Williams 1992). In this sense, the
for investigations in immunology and allergy (Holubar 1987). work of the French physician, Claude Bernard (1813-1878),
Among his written works is the 1871 Handbuch der Lehre von was paradigmatic. Bernard established the use of the scientific
den Geweben des Menschen und der Thiere, a two-volume method in medicine and relied on experimentation as the key to
textbook containing his essays on histology along with the scientific progress. Texts and books did not suffice anymore,
works of the several other eminent physicians. At the time, it and future physicians were encouraged to better understand the
was considered one of the greatest histology textbooks. Stricker working of internal organs through actual visualization of vital
and Brücke were Klein’s mentors, who inspired his experimen- actions in the living animal.
tal work in science and medicine and determined his research Emanuel Edward Klein, the key figure of the 1875 vivisec-
interests and direction. tion controversy, is a typical representative of experimentalists
The crucial moment in Klein’s life was his visit to England, of that time when the norms of scientists’ behavior toward
where he was sent in 1869 to determine the terms for the trans- experimental subjects and protection of animals had not yet
lation of Samuel Stricker’s manual Handbuch der Lehere von existed. Klein’s appeal before the Royal Commission on Vivi-
den Geweben des Menchen und der Thiere, in which he himself section for Scientific Purposes in 1875 and the view of him as a
had authored two chapters, one on the termination of the fine monstrous vivisectionist marked the beginning of ethical
nerves in the tadpole’s tail and the other on the development concerns over the quality of life for animals and of the public
of the blood vessels in the chicken embryo. During the visit, interest in the welfare of research animals.
Downloaded from tpx.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015Vol. 000, No. 00, 2009 KLEIN AND THE ANIMAL VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY 3
THE NOTORIOUS HANDBOOK calves, pigs, sows, hedgehogs, cats, and dogs. An illustration
of the cold precision with which Klein writes is typified by his
After the series of lectures ‘‘On the Propriety of Using the
description regarding the investigation of the histology of the
Lower Animals for the Purpose of Experimentation’’ given
eye, where the cornea of a living frog was to be scraped with
by Sanderson at the University College London, a textbook was
a sharp cataract knife, so as to remove the epithelium com-
produced in 1873 titled Handbook for the Physiological
pletely. To examine Peyer’s follicles with wax mass, a cat, dog,
Laboratory and published in London (Burdon-Sanderson
or rabbit was to be starved for a day or two, then fed with milk
1873). The editors included John Burdon-Sanderson,
or fat meat, and finally strangled. To produce inflammatory
professor of practical physiology at the University College
changes in liver cells, a needle was to be inserted into the liver
London; Edward Emanuel Klein, assistant professor in the
and the animal killed 24 to 48 hours after the injury (Richards
Pathological Laboratory of the Brown Institution in London;
1987).
Michael Foster (1810-1880), fellow and praelector of physiol-
ogy at the Trinity College Cambridge; and Thomas Lauder
THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON VIVISECTION
Brunton (1844-1916), lecturer on Materia Medica at the
FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES
Medical College of Saint Bartholomew’s Hospital in London.
The experiments on the animals described in the Handbook In 1875, the Royal Commission on Vivisection for Scien-
were conducted at University College London, Cambridge tific Purposes, presided over by Lord Cardwell, was established
University, Edinburgh University, and the Brown Institution. in response to the animal experiments described in the Hand-
The first volume contained detailed instructions for performing book, with a goal to set acceptable standards for animal
dozens of classical experiments in physiology, previously research for the times. Klein was questioned, together with
described by French physiologists Francois Magendie and other authors, in 1876; and the testimonies were published in
Claude Bernard, whereas the second volume contained 123 the Blue Book, the term applied to all nineteenth-century par-
plates illustrating the experiments. The editors’ preface empha- liamentary papers, on account of their being bound with a blue
sized that the Handbook was intended for beginners in physio- cover (Jesse 2008). Burdon-Sanderson was questioned on the
logical work and laboratory methods, rather than ordinary animal experiments that he had performed without the use of
students. The Handbook consisted of 600 pages, 353 illustra- anesthetics or with the use of curare. On one occasion, he
tions, and 123 plates. Klein’s histological and embryological exclaimed that, during his education in France, Claude Bernard
section contained 163 pages on microscopic tissue morphol- was ‘‘the most inspiring teacher, the most profound scientific
ogy, methods of obtaining and preparing tissue samples from thinker, and the most remarkable experimental physiologist
living animals or preserved material with and without the use he had ever known’’; and he even paraphrased Francois
of various reagents, methods of staining and hardening materi- Magendie’s statement on the ‘‘long and ghastly kitchen.’’ In his
als, and cutting frozen or waxed sections and was enriched with own defense, he stated that the book had always been intended
189 engravings. Klein’s contribution was divided into two for professionals and not for students (Richards 1987). Foster
parts. In the first part, he described the preparation of the claimed that his approach had always been to avoid pain and
elementary tissues, with chapters on blood corpuscles, epithe- that he would be more careful in his future studies. Brunton was
lium and endothelium, connective tissues, muscular tissue, questioned on his animal experiments on ninety cats, but he
and tissues of the nervous system; while the second part proved that he had used anesthesia and had avoided the use
described the preparation of the compound tissues and con- of curare. It seemed that Klein, as a foreigner, did not know
sisted of chapters on methods, vascular system, lymphatic how to respond appropriately before the Commission, as may
system, organs of respiration, organs of digestion, skin, be inferred from the following excerpt:
cutaneous glands, urogenital system, special sense organs,
inflamed tissues, and embryology. Burdon-Sanderson Question number 3538. ‘‘What is your own practice with
authored chapters on blood analysis, circulation, respiration, regard to the use of anesthetics in experiments that are
and animal heath; Foster described neuromuscular functions; otherwise painful?’’—[Klein’s response] ‘‘Except for
and Brunton wrote on digestion and secretion. teaching purposes and for public demonstrations, I never
Although the Handbook was the first comprehensive text on use anesthetics, where it is not necessary for conveni-
physiology to be published in Britain, its scientific success was ence. If I demonstrate, I use anesthetics.’’
almost totally overshadowed by the public outrage over the ani-
mal vivisections described within its pages. Burdon-Sanderson 3539. ‘‘When you say that you only use them for conve-
and Klein received the greatest criticism from antivivisection- nience sake, do you mean that you have no regard at all
ists, because they authored the majority of the painful experi- for the sufferings of the animals?’’—[Klein’s response]
ments—15% of all experiments described in the book— ‘‘No regard at all.’’
without any mention of using anesthesia, despite the fact that
ether and chloroform had been in use since the 1840s (Jesse 3540. ‘‘You are prepared to establish that as a principle of
2008). Klein described experiments on tadpoles, frogs, lizards, which you approve?’’—[Klein’s response] ‘‘I think with
snakes, chickens, geese, ducks, rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, regard to an experimenter, a man who conducts special
Downloaded from tpx.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 20154 ATALIĆ AND FATOVIĆ-FERENČIĆ TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
research, he has no time, so to speak, for thinking what autonomous disciplinary goals (Sturdy 2007). Klein was also
the animal will feel or suffer. His only purpose is to per- condemned by radical groups like the suffragettes, antivivisec-
form the experiment, to learn as much from it as possible, tionists, and the socialists, united in the fear that human vivi-
and do it as quickly as possible . . . just as little can the sections were the next step in this natural progression
physiologist or the investigator be expected to devote (Lansbury 1985). This gave rise to the numerous pamphlets
time and thought to inquiring what the animal will feel printed denouncing him and his practices (Barlow-Kennett
while he is doing the experiment.’’ n.d.).
As the result of this controversy, two societies were formed.
3541. ‘‘Then for your own purposes you disregard On the one side, the Victorian Street Society for the Protection
entirely the question of the suffering of the animal in per- of Animals Liable to Vivisection was formed by Frances Cobbe
forming a painful experiment.’’—[Klein’s response] ‘‘I and Doctor Hogan in London in 1875. It effectively united emi-
do.’’ nent members from very different sides of the British Victorian
Society in the fight for the same goal. The most prominent
3553. ‘‘But you believe that generally speaking there is a members were, among others, the Roman Catholic Archbishop
very different feeling in England?’’—[Klein’s response] of Westminster, Henry Edward Cardinal Manning; the Arch-
‘‘Not amongst the physiologists. I do not think there is.’’ bishop of York, William IX Thompson; the Lord Chief Justice
of England, Sir Alexander Cockburn; Prince Lucien Bonaparte
3554. ‘‘But amongst the people of England do you think of France; Princess Eugenie of Sweden; Alfred Lord Tennyson;
there is a very different feeling from what exists upon the Robert Browning; and John Ruskin (Vyvyan 1969).
Continent on this subject?’’—[Klein’s response] ‘‘Yes, I On the other side was the Physiological Society, whose aim
think so.’’ was the promotion of experimental research. It was founded in
1876 by, among others, Charles Darwin, Francis Maitland
3641.—[Klein’s response] ‘‘If it is a large and vigorous Balfour, Thomas Lauder Brunton, Francis Darwin, Michael
animal, as a dog, we do bind it and fasten it. A cat we Foster, Francis Galton, W. H. Gaskell, Thomas Henry Huxley,
generally must chloroform.’’ Emanuel Edward Klein, F. W. Pavy, Henry Power, P. H.
Pye-Smith, William Rutherford, Sir Edward Sharpey-Schafer,
3642. ‘‘Why do you not chloroform a dog?’’—[Klein’s Gerald F. Yeo, and C. Yule (Sharpey-Schafer 1927).
response] ‘‘We chloroform a cat because we are afraid It is obvious that this case of vivisection controversy was
of being scratched.’’ primarily the confrontation of the two worlds with opposed
views—one, a conservative aristocratic class prone to the
3643. ‘‘Why not a dog?’’—[Klein’s response] ‘‘If it is a Oxford movement and the Natural theology (Vyvyan 1969);
small dog there is no fear of being bitten by the dog.’’ and the other, a progressive bourgeois class as an advocate of
the theory of evolution, still controversial at the time. To make
3739. ‘‘And do you think that the view of scientific men a civilizing step forward, having a public discussion in an offi-
on the Continent is your view, that animal suffering is so cial place does not suffice and a wider context is required, not
entirely unimportant compared with scientific research the least of which is the approval of the public. In this particular
that it should not be taken into account at all.’’—[Klein’s case, in which vivisection controversially came to the attention
response] ‘‘Yes, except for convenience sake.’’ (Graham of the public, popular fiction played an important role in the
1881) propagation of the stereotypical image of a scientist.
One outcome from the publicity was the publication of three
Although Klein sent a revised version of his statement, when gothic novels supposedly inspired by Klein’s character,
he finally realized the mistake he had made in speaking so namely, the novel Paul Faber, Surgeon (the character of
candidly, it was already too late. The Commission decided to Surgeon Paul Faber) by George MacDonald in 1878; The Pro-
publish both of his statements, and the image of a cruel vivisec- fessor’s Wife (the character of Physiologist Eric Grant) by
tionist was created in the eyes of the general public, despite Leonard Graham in 1881; and Heart and Science (the character
his friends’ claims that he was actually fond of animals, of Assistant Ovid Vere) by Wilkie Collins in 1883. These
especially dogs (Bulloch 1925). Consequently, the image of novels described a new type of a scientist whose characters
Klein as a prototype of a monstrous vivisectionist remained were heavily modeled on that of Emanuel Edward Klein. How-
unchanged until his death in 1925. He was unreservedly ever, the use of language, and the fact that stereotypically
attacked by the older generation of physicians and surgeons, negative characteristics (hypnotist and sadist) were combined
who perceived medicine as an empirical, rather than experi- with ethnic affiliation (German and Jewish), and anticlerical
mental, discipline with a purpose to educate gentlemen and not elements (evolutionist and atheist), speak more about the
scientists. Such a reaction was understandable, particularly if British Victorian xenophobia than about Klein himself.
we keep in mind that physiology in Britain at that time was The outcome of the whole controversy was the passage
increasingly seen as a separate scientific discipline, character- through the English Parliament of the Cruelty to Animals Act,
ized by distinct academic culture and a jealous pursuit of its which was based upon the investigations of the 1876 Royal
Downloaded from tpx.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015Vol. 000, No. 00, 2009 KLEIN AND THE ANIMAL VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY 5
Commission Report. The Act stipulated that vivisection could considerably between the two localities. Finally, Worboys
be performed only by persons holding a valid license, issued by (2000) attempted to balance the aforementioned extreme opi-
the home secretary, upon the advice of the responsible author- nions by emphasizing the very positive contribution that
ities. For special experiments, which might involve pain, or in Klein’s experimental work had on the popularization of bacter-
which anesthetics could not be used during the course of the iology in public health, surgery, and medicine.
experiment, special certificates limiting the number and defin- If we put Klein’s testimony, and particularly his attitudes
ing the scope of such experiments had to be obtained and expressed before the Royal Commission, into a historical per-
signed by the same authorities, and the operation of these spe- spective, we might say that they were part of the scientific phi-
cial certificates was subjected to the veto of the home secretary losophy shared by the majority of scientists at that moment in
at any time (Sharpey-Schafer 1927). time. For example, Francois Magendie (1783-1855), generally
regarded as the father of modern physiology, commented on
Klein’s vivisections as follows: ‘‘If I were to look for a smile
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
that would express my feelings about the science of life, I
It is obvious from Klein’s words that he was completely should say that it was a superb salon, glittering with light, to
insensitive to the pain of the animals that he used in his which the only entrance is through a long and horrible kitchen’’
experiments. Throughout the hearing he expressed his personal (Vyvyan 1969). Magendie’s immediate successor in the Chair
attitudes, and insensitivity, toward animals openly and without of Medicine at the College de France, Claude Bernard (1813-
any reservation, and at no time did he attempt to present him- 1878), stated that ‘‘the physiologist is not an ordinary man;
self in a different, more sympathetic light. It is evident that he he is a scientist, possessed and absorbed by the scientific idea
was unaware that the methods he used in his experiments, and that he pursues. He does not hear the cries of animals, he does
particularly that his goals (scientific truth), violated almost not see their flowing blood, he sees nothing but his idea, and is
every moral, and scientific, norm operated at the time. On one aware of nothing but an organism that conceals from him the
hand, animal lovers pictured him as a monstrous vivisectionist problem he is seeking to resolve’’ (Vyvyan 1969).
(Vyvyan 1969), while on the other hand, he himself contributed Klein’s contemporaries, Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) and
to this decidedly unfavorable image by bluntly expressing his Robert Koch (1843-1910), who were honored as scientific her-
attitudes toward vivisection. The probable truth was that Klein oes in their countries, also performed vivisections as pivotal to
had almost certainly been heavily influenced by the Jennerian their work and understanding (Dubois 1961; Brock 1988).
tradition of connecting diseases of humans with animals, and as Lansbury (1985) tried to explain the difference in attitudes
a consequence focused almost exclusively on continuous ani- toward vivisection in France and in Britain by invoking reli-
mal experiments (Andrews 1925). The experiment in which gious differences between the two countries. According to him,
he described himself and Lingard feeding fowls with putrid Catholic France was more open to animal vivisections, because
lungs of dead humans to see if consumption could be trans- physiologists were compared to priests and animal sacrifice, in
mitted that way was doubtlessly unnecessary in its design and pursuit of science, to mass sacrifice in pursuit of salvation.
operation. On the other hand, that project had been funded with However, if we take Cardinal Manning as the most prominent
half of an annual Brown Sanatory Institution grant of 2,000 member of the Victorian Street Society on the one side, and the
GBP in 1875 and was described in the Supplement to the president of the Society, Frances Cobbe, who was against
Sixteenth Annual Report of the Local Government Board animal vivisections but endorsed fox hunting, on the other,
(M.R.C.S. 1889). Given that there were no manuals, or rules, we can conclude that this observation is disputable. It would
on laboratory animal management and welfare at the time, this be more reasonable to explain French openness to animal vivi-
paradoxical dichotomy, encountered in practice, is perhaps sections through the influence of guillotine executions during
more understandable. French Revolution (1789-1799) and human autopsy during the
Despite Klein’s considerable contributions and pioneering apex of the Paris School of Clinical Medicine (1789-1848) and
work in a number of research areas, especially those of anat- British condemnation of the same through the activity of
omy, histology, physiology, embryology, and microbiology, oppressed groups such as workers, suffragettes, and nonconfor-
the aura of a cruel vivisectionist continued to follow him even mists (Mason 1997). Mason (1997) drew the connection
after his death. For example, Waddington (2003) believed that between vivisectionists, Oxbridge medical students, and con-
Klein’s actions inflicted huge damage on the development of servatives on the one side and antivivisectionists, suffragettes,
physiology and stated that he had ‘‘no regard at all’’ for the liberals, socialists, and radicals on the other. In the late nine-
suffering of laboratory animals. He further characterized Klein teenth century, vivisection carried a broad definition, and indi-
as undiplomatic, blunt, and unpopular. Bulloch (1938) empha- viduals both inside and outside of the medical community in
sized Klein’s individual, dogmatic, and polemic character. Europe, as well as in other parts of the world, considered vivi-
Richards (1987) tried to place Klein’s approaches into the section to be a controversial issue. For example, Mary Putnam
context provided by a European attitude to his vivisections and Jacoby’s (1842-1906) advocacy of vivisection was part of her
showed that the same experiments were being conducted by effort to reform medical education but was also consistent with
physiologists on the European mainland at the same time as her political strategy aimed at allowing women to enter scien-
those working in Britain, even though public attitudes differed tific practice and advancing women’s rights. She formulated a
Downloaded from tpx.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 20156 ATALIĆ AND FATOVIĆ-FERENČIĆ TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
scientific identity in opposition to the sentimental Victorian Burdon-Sanderson, J., ed. (1873). Handbook for the physiological laboratory.
femininity, rejecting a sympathetic and caring model of medi- London: Churchill.
Collins, W. (1883). Heart and science. London: Chatto and Windus.
cine invoked by many of her female peers (Bittel 2005). Cressey, D. (2008). Proposed animal research reforms spark concern in
Klein’s advocacy of vivisection, on the other hand, was shaped Europe. Nature Medicine 10, 1038, 1208–93.
by a continental experimental worldview with a single goal, Cunningham, A., and Williams, P., eds. (1992). The laboratory revolution in
which was a deeper commitment to the scientific enterprise and medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
a strong belief that science offered solutions to the social prob- Dubois, R. (1961). Pasteur and modern science. London: Heinemann.
Fatović-Ferenčić, S (2004). Free the dinosaurs into butterfly gardens: In a
lems of the day. Evidence in support of this is the fact that he search to changing the profile of the academic professional. CMJ 45,
performed an experiment on himself by drinking water infected 375–77.
with the Vibrio cholerae in July 1884 to prove that in itself it Fatović-Ferenčić, S. (2008). Klein, Emanuel Edward. In Hrvatski biografski
was not sufficient to cause cholera (Waller 2002). leksikon, ed. T. Macan. Zagreb, Croatia: Leksikografski zavod Miroslav
The Handbook for the Physiological Laboratory, which Krleža.
Franklin, R. J. M. (2000). The Brown Animal Sanatory Institution—Historical
became a case of controversy debated before the Royal Com- lessons for the present? Veterinary Journal 159, 231–37.
mission, was published 135 years ago. Guidelines for the use Graham, L. (1881). The professor’s wife (Supplement). London: Chatto and
of animals in research have been changed almost out of recog- Windus.
nition since those times. However, the current European Union Holubar, K. (1987). Salomon Stricker (1843-1898): Pioneer experimental
directive on the use of animals in research has opened the pathologist. Am J Dermatopathol 9, 149–50.
Jesse, G. R. (2008). Evidence, given before the Royal Commission on Vivisec-
debate all over again (Cressey 2008). While scientists are tion. Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar, LLC.
endeavoring to justify the importance of basic research, anti- Lambert, R. (1963). Sir John Simone 1816-1904: and English social adminis-
vivisectionist groups are preparing to lobby for Europe to tration. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
severely curtail or even end animal experiments. The contro- Lansbury, C. (1985). The old brown dog—Women, workers, and vivisection in
versy that started with Klein obviously still continues. Edwardian England. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Lesky, E. (1965). Die Wiener medizinische schule. 19. Jahrhundert. Graz-
Köln, Germany: Hermann Böhlaus.
MacDonald, G. (1878). Paul Faber, surgeon. London: Hurst and Blackett.
REFERENCES
Mason, P. (1997). The brown dog affair—The story of a monument the divided
Andrews, F. W. (1925). In memoriam—Edward Emanuel Klein, MD, FRS. the nation. London: Two Seven Publishing.
Saint Bartholomew’s Hospital Reports 58(1 suppl.), 1–6. Mortimer, P. P. (1999). The bacteria craze of 1880s. Lancet 353, 581–84.
Appendix A of the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate M.R.C.S. (1889). Twelve years trial of the Vivisection Act—Has it stopped the
Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes (ETS scientific torture of animals in England? London: n.p.
no. 123) Guidelines for Accommodation and Care of Animals (Article Richards, S. (1987). Vicarious suffering, necessary pain. In Vivisection in
5 of the Convention) Approved by the Multilateral Consultation. 2006. historical perspective, (N. A. Rupke, ed.). London: Routledge.
Strasbourg, 15 June 2006, Cons 123 (2006) 3. Sharpey-Schafer, E. (1927). History of the Physiological Society 1876–1926.
Barlow-Kennett, R. (n.d.). Address to the working classes. London: Victoria Journal of Physiology 64(1 suppl.), 1–76.
Street Society United with the International Association. Sturdy, S. (2007). Scientific method for medical practitioners: The case method
Bittel, C. (2005). Science, suffrage, and experimentation: Mary Putnam Jacobi of teaching pathology in early twentieth–century Edinburgh. Bull Hist
and the controversy over vivisection in late nineteenth-century America. Med 81, 760–92.
Bull Hist Med 79, 664–94. Vyvyan, J. (1969). In pity and in anger—A study of the use of animals in sci-
Brock, T. D. (1988). Robert Koch—A life in medicine and bacteriology. Madi- ence. London: Michael Joseph.
son, WI: Science Tech Publishers. Waddington, K. (2003). Medical education at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital,
Bulloch, W. (1925). In memoriam: Emanuel Klein: 1844-1925. Journal of 1123-1995. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell.
Pathology and Bacteriology 28, 684–97. Waller, J. (2002). The discovery of the germ. Duxford, UK: Icon Books.
Bulloch, W. (1938). The history of bacteriology. Oxford: Oxford University Worboys, M. (2000). Spreading germs: disease theories and medical practice
Press. in Britain, 1865-1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
For reprints and permissions queries, please visit SAGE’s Web site at http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from tpx.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015You can also read
